About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 6
CNNW 3
LANGUAGE
English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
cain and lindsey graham are so busy attacking susan rice. well maybe it's because -- think about this, if the president can't appoint susan rice, then he would have to appoint john kerry and that would open up a massachusetts senate seat for scott brown. so it could all be a way of getting back another republican in the united states senate. don't know for sure. just sayin'. all right. we'll look into that and a whole lot more here but first standing by with today's current news update, lisa ferguson in los angeles. hi lisa. take it away. >> hey bill, thanks. good morning everyone. as president heads to meet with leaders of the business world this afternoon politico is reporting that john boehner and his leadership team are making plans to meet with some of these very same executives. now the irony here is that obama and boehner still have no plans to meet themselves face-to-face. the two did meet before congress' thanksgiving recess along with the other two three members of the house and the senate. they had plans to
director mike morrell met with john mccain, lindsey graham and kelly ayotte over what rice knew the in the days after the deadly consulate attack in benghazi. all three claim to be more troubled after this meeting. >> we're significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16th september explanation about how four americans died by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> clearly the impression that was begin, the information begin to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely, it was wrong. >> and within the past hour the white house once again defended ambassador rice. >> focus on some might say obsession made on comments made on sunday shows seems, to me, and to many, to be misplaced. >> and the ambassador herself made this statement only a short time ago. it read in part, quote, i appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues directly and structurive wi them. the administration remains committed t
graham and ayotte say they're going to put a hold on ambassador rice if, in fact, she's nominated to be the secretary of state, they're going to put a hold on her, even though there's no direct responsibility, direct knowledge, and no accusation of direct knowledge by her on any of these matters, and she's saying what, in effect, she was told to say by the intelligence community. yet we're told that democrats are ready to fight. a democratic aide tells nbc news, this is getting people's back up. the general sense of mood is this is ridiculous. she's obviously qualified. no one on our side thinks there's any substance whatsoever to the republican criticisms. the aide also questioned whether republicans, besides mccain, graham and ayotte would think this was a smart fight to pick. after all, it would be a high-profile fight with a qualified african-american woman. >> and she's not just qualified. she is supremely well qualified. she has tremendous experience. she's been enormously successful with her work at the u.n. we were able to marshal some of the most significant sanctions on
toughest credit activities capitol hill. ms. rice met with republican senators john mccain, lindsay graham, and kelly ayott, all had vowed to block her nomination after what she said about the deadly attack on americans on n benghazi, libya. here's what graham said moments ago when the meeting came to a close. >> if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16, september. they got bad information from president obama days after. and the question is should they have been giving the information at all. if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? >> ah. let's go straight to cnn's dana bash. so before we heard that pretty explosive news conference, it seemed as though there was a bit of a softening of some of the gop's opposition to ms. rice's moving up in the president's cabinet. now after hearing that, i need to get some clarity if i can from you abo
cain, ayotte and graham who criticized her original comments on the deadly benghazi attacks. i picture the conversation between the president and rice going like this. we want you as secretary of state, so go make nice. answer their questions so they stop attacking you and threatening to block your possible nomination. yeah, so how did that work out? >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. it is clear that the information that she gave the american public was incorrect. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield. if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? >> i'm more troubled today. just to be clear, when you have a position where you're ambassador to the united nations, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. that'
being made by mccain, by lindsey graham, and by senator ayotte of new hampshire is that this ambassador to the u.n. went on all the national shows, including "meet the press," in mid-september and basically tried to delay the news because it would get out eventually, that it was al qaeda that launched this attack. does that pass the smell test? that somebody would knowingly do that knowing the truth would be coming out in a matter of days? >> they still don't know who was responsible. there are links to al qaeda, they say, but links is a broad word. those links can take many forms. i think this is all a political red herrings. >> you're with tom ricks on this one. >> the main question is why was the consulate in benghazi still open when the administration, when even the ambassador acknowledged that the threats against the united states was rising and security was -- >> and the answer could be we had cia agents in that area -- >> absolutely. >> -- that needed to be protected. ambassador susan rice met with her strongest critics on capitol hill today to answer questions about benghazi, an
harshest gop critics. those senators, john mccain, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, were not satisfied, they said, with the ambassador's explanation for her comments following the benghazi consulate attack. cnn foreign affairs reporter elise labott has more details for us. she's in washington, d.c. this morning. elise, good morning. >> hey, soledad. well, what came out in those meetings and why senators say they're even more concerned, centers around the information that the cia had just after the attack about possible involvement in the benghazi attack that killed ambassador chris stevens and those three other americans. now, ambassador rice did not make reference to this information in her talk show appearances. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american p
of her as a spokesman for the administration. one suspects that senators graham and mccain and ayotte have other reasons for opposing her and are using this as an excuse but it's fairly flimsy because while there are legitimate questions to be asked about what happened in benghazi -- >> but dana, hang on a second. if you have a problem with susan rice, let her be nominated, challenge her, and go through due process. why do this on the basis of intelligence that she had received that's consistent with the information that she was given by the cia? >> not only is it illogical, it is counterproductive because they're putting the president in a position of saying he's going to nominate her if he wasn't before because now he's not going to look like he's caving in or backing down. so they're going to achieve the exact opposite of what they're purporting to want. >> absolutely astonishing. goldie, conservatives, as we know, are attacking ambassador rice for admitting that the initial intelligence was wrong in one respect, that there was no process in benghazi, but she's admitted that the in
not to believe that statement on her part? >> well, one of the things that senator graham said today was that he wants more of the investigation -- the information to come out. the fbi agents who had interviewed survivors of the attack. and he wants to know more information before he says he would be willing to elevate somebody who was involved in any part of this controversy. i do think that susan rice is not really the one that i am personally most concerned about. just as a. >> reporter: trying to find out the truth. the state department itself and susan rice is part of it but not really involved in deciding why they didn't get adequate security who did what in terms of trying to help the people who were pinned down. that seems to be more of a c.i.a. question. those are the people i really want to find out more about. >> eliot: i think that's exactly right. there are a myriad of legitimate questions that should be asked about the information through the decision making but it seems to me susan rice is the least infor
. senators ayotte, graham and mccain, republicans who had from the get-go before they talked to her vowed -- or threatened to block her nomination. so that was one thing. today is different because that senator you just played, susan collins, is among the last remaining moderate republicans here. she does have a lot of information about what happened because she is the top republican on the homeland security committee, and she actually has a history of supporting susan rice. she was the one who introduced susan rice when she was at her confirmation hearing for the post she's in now as u.n. ambassador. so the fact that susan collins even has questions, i asked her point blank if she could support rice for secretary of state, and her answer was not yet. she has to have other questions answered. that's not a good sign for rice, but we should underscore a couple of things. one, she hasn't been nominated yet. and, two, she -- rice does have a lot of support from democrats who still have the majority. the issue is whether or not she'll need, if she's nominated, 60 votes to get confirmed. >> wha
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)